Prefixation in the English language and its role in enriching the English vocabulary

Chapter II. Prefixation the English language

2.1 Prefixation and some debatable problems

According to H. Marchand H. Marchand - «The Categories and Types of Present English Word-Formation» 1960. who treats prefixes as a part of word composition, he thinks that a prefix has the same function as the first component of a compound word.

Prefixes are called such particles as can be prefixed to full words but are themselves, not words with an independent existence. Native prefixes have developed out of independent words. Their number is small: a-, be-, un- (negative and reversative) fore-, mid- and (partly) mis-. Prefix of foreign origin came into the language ready made, so to speak. They are due to syntagmatic loans from other languages: when a number of analyzable foreign words of the same structure had been introduced into the language, the pattern could be extended to new formations i.e. the prefix then became a derivative morpheme. Some prefixes have secondarily developed uses as independent words as counter sub-arch which does not invalidate the principle that primarily they were particles with no independent existence. The same phenomenon occurs with suffixes also. ..

E.C. Kуберкова E. C. Кубрекова - « Чmo maкое словообразование?» M. 1964 distinguishes between two types of prefixes:

Those which are functional words (such as prepositions or adverbs) Ex: but-, over-, up-.

Those which are not correlated with any independent words. Ex: un-, dis-, re-, mis-.

Prefixes out-, over-, up-, under-, etc. are considered as semi bound morphemes. However this view is doubtful because this prefixes are quite frequent in speech and live other derivational affixes have a generalized meaning.

They have no grammatical meaning live the independent words. We think they are bound morphemes and should be regarded as homonyms of the corresponding independent words, ex: the prefix out in outdoor, outcome, outbreak, etc. is homonymous to the preposition «out» in «out of door» and the adverb «out» in «he went out».

Prefixation is the formation of words with the help of prefixes. The interpretation of the terms prefix and prefixation now firmly rooted in linguistic literature has undergone a certain evolution. For instance, some time ago there were linguists who treated prefixation as part of word composition (or compounding). The greater semantic independence of prefixes as compared with suffixes led the linguists to identify prefixes with the first component part of a compound word.

At present the majority of scholars treat prefixation as an integral part of word derivation regarding prefixes as derivational affixes which differ essentially both from root-morphemes and non-derivational pre-positive morphemes. Opinions sometimes differs concerning the interpretation of the functional status of certain individual groups of morphemes, which commonly occur as first component parts of words. H. Marchand, for instance, analysis words like to overdo, to underestimate as compound verbs, the first components of which are locative particles, not prefixes. In a similar way he interprets words like income, onlooker, outhouse qualifying them as compounds with locative particles as first elements.

There are about 51 prefixes in the system of Modern English word formation.

According to the available word counts of prefixal derivatives the greatest number are verbs - 42.4 %, adjectives comprise 33.5 % and nouns make up 22.4 %. To give some examples.

Prefixal verbs: to enrich, to disagree, to undergo, etc.;

Prefixal adjectives: anti-war, biannual, uneasy, superhuman, etc.;

Prefixal nouns: ex-champion, co-author, disharmony, subcommittee, etc.

It is of interest to mention that the number of prefixal derivatives within a certain part of speech is in inverse proportion to the actual number of prefixes: 22 form verbs, 41 prefixes make adjectives and 42 nouns.

Proceeding from the three types of morphemes that the structural classification involves two types of prefixes ate to be distinguished:

those not correlated with any independent word (either notional or functional) e.g. no-, dis-, re-, pre-, post-, etc.; and

those correlated with functional words (prepositions or prepositions-like adverbs), e.g. out-, over-, up-, under-, etc.

Prefixes of the second type are qualified as semi bound morphemes, which implies that they occur in speech in various utterances both as independent words and as derivational affixes, e.g. «over one's head», «over the river» (cf. to overlap, to overpass), «to run out», «to take somebody out» (cf. to outvote;, to outline); «to look up», «hands up» (cf. upstairs, to upset); «under the same roof»; «to go under» (cf. to underestimate, undercurrent), etc.

I should be mentioned that English prefixes of the second type essentially differ from the functional words, they are correlated with:

like any other derivational affixes they have a more generalized meaning in comparison with the more concrete meanings of the correlated words they are characterized by a unity of different denotational components of meaning - a generalized component common to a set of prefixes and individual semantic component distinguishing the given prefix within the set.

They are deprived of all grammatical features peculiar to the independent words they are correlated with;

They tend to develop a meaning not found in the correlated words;

They form regular sets of words of the same semantic type.

Of late some new investigations into the problem of prefixation in English have yielded interesting results. It appears that the traditional opinion, current among linguists, that prefixes modify only the lexical meaning of words without changing the part of speech is not quite correct with regard to the English language. In English there are about 25 prefixes which can transfer words to a different part of speech in comparison with their original stems. Such prefixes should perhaps be called convertive prefixes, e.g. to begulf (cf. gulf n), to debus (cf. bus n); to embronze (cf. bronze n), etc. If further investigation of English prefixation gives more proofs of the convertive ability of prefixes, it will then be possible to draw the conclusion that in this respect there is no functional difference between suffixes and prefixes, for suffixes in English are also both convertive (cf. hand - handless) and non-convertive (cf. father - fatherhood, horseman - horsemanship, etc).

Some recent investigations in the field of English affixation have revealed a close interdependence between the meanings of a polysemantic affix and the lexico-semantic group to which belongs the base it is affixed to, which results in the difference between structural and structural-semantic derivational patterns the prefix forms. A good illustration in point is the prefix en-.

When within the same structural pattern en- + n - V, the prefix is combined with noun bases denoting articles of clothing, thinks of luxury, etc. it forms derived verbs expressing an action of putting or placing on, e.g. enrobe (cf. robe), enjewel (cf. jewel), enlace (cf. lace), etc.

When added to noun bases referring to various land forms, means of transportation, containers and notions of geometry it builds derived verbs denoting an action of putting or placing in.

At present the majority of scholars treat prefixation as an integral part of word derivation regarding prefixes as derivational affixes which differ essentially both from root-morphemes and non-derivational pre-positive morphemes. Opinions sometimes differs concerning the interpretation of the functional status of certain individual groups of morphemes, which commonly occur as first component parts of words.

Prefixation is the formation of words by means of adding a prefix to the stem. In English it is characteristic for forming verbs. Prefixes are more independent than suffixes. Prefixes can be classified according to the nature of words in which they are used : prefixes used in notional words and prefixes used in functional words. Prefixes used in notional words are proper prefixes which are bound morphemes, e.g. un- (unhappy). Prefixes used in functional words are semi-bound morphemes because they are met in the language as words, e.g. over- (overhead) ( cf over the table ).

The main function of prefixes in English is to change the lexical meaning of the same part of speech. But the recent research showed that about twenty-five prefixes in Modern English form one part of speech from another (bebutton, interfamily, postcollege etc).

Prefixes can be classified according to different principles :

1. Semantic classification :

a) prefixes of negative meaning, such as : in- (invaluable), non- (nonformals), un- (unfree) etc,

b) prefixes denoting repetition or reversal actions, such as: de- (decolonize), re- (revegetation), dis- (disconnect),

c) prefixes denoting time, space, degree relations, such as : inter- (interplanetary) , hyper- (hypertension), ex- (ex-student), pre- (pre-election), over- (overdrugging) etc.

2. Origin of prefixes:

a) native (Germanic), such as: un-, over-, under- etc.

b) Romanic, such as : in-, de-, ex-, re- etc.

c) Greek, such as : sym-, hyper- etc.

When we analyze such words as : adverb, accompany where we can find the root of the word (verb, company) we may treat ad-, ac- as prefixes though they were never used as prefixes to form new words in English and were borrowed from Romanic languages together with words. In such cases we can treat them as derived words. But some scientists treat them as simple words. Another group of words with a disputable structure are such as : contain, retain, detain and conceive, receive, deceive where we can see that re-, de-, con- act as prefixes and -tain, -ceive can be understood as roots. But in English these combinations of sounds have no lexical meaning and are called pseudo-morphemes. Some scientists treat such words as simple words, others as derived ones.

There are some prefixes which can be treated as root morphemes by some scientists, e.g. after- in the word afternoon. American lexicographers working on Webster dictionaries treat such words as compound words. British lexicographers treat such words as derived ones.

2.2 Classification of Prefixes

Unlike suffixation, which is usually more closely bound up with the paradigm of a certain part of speech, prefixation is considered to be more neutral in this respect. It is significant that in linguistic literature derivational suffixes are always divided into noun-forming, adjective-forming, etc. prefixes, however, are treated differently. They are described either in alphabetical order or subdivided into several classes in accordance with their origin, meaning or functional and never according to the part of speech.

Prefixes may be classified on different principles. Diachronically distinction is made between prefixes of native and foreign origin. Synchronically prefixes may be classified:

1) according to the class of words they preferably form. Recent investigations, as has been mentioned above, allow one to classify prefixes according to this principle. It must be noted that most of the 51 prefixes of Modern English function in more than one part of speech forming different structural and structural-semantic patterns.

A small group 5 prefixes may be referred to exclusively verb-forming (en-, be-, on-, etc.).

The majority of prefixes (in their various denotational meanings) tend to function either in nominal parts of speech (41 patterns in adjectives, 42 in nouns) or in verbs (22 patterns);

2) as to the type of lexical-grammatical character of the base they are added to into; deverbal, e.g. rewrite, outstay, overdo, etc.; denominal, e.g. unbutton, detrain, ex-president, etc.; deadjectival, e.g. uneasy, biannual, etc.;

It is of interest to note that the most productive prefixal pattern for adjectives is the one made up of the prefix un-, and the base built either on adjectival stems or present and past participle, e.g. unknown, unsmiling, unseen, etc.;

semantically prefixes fall into mono and polysemantic;

as to the generic denotational meaning there are different groups that are distinguished in linguistic literature:

a) Negative prefixes, such as: un-, non-, dis-, a- e.g. ungrateful (cf. grateful), non-politician (cf. politician) unemployment (cf. employment), non-scientific (cf. scientific), incorrect (cf. correct), disloyal (cf. loyal), disadvantage (cf. advantage), amoral (cf. morale), asymmetry (cf. symmetry), etc. It may be mentioned in passing that the prefix in- occurs in different phonetic shapes depending on the initial sound of the base it is affixed to; in other words, the prefixal morpheme in question has several allomorphs, namely il- (before [1]), im- (before [p,m]), in- (before [r]), in- in all other cases, e.g. illegal, improbably, immaterial, irreligious, inactive, etc.;

Reversative or privative prefixes, such as un-, de-, dis-, e.g. untie (cf. tie), unleash (cf. leash), decentralize (cf. centralize), disconnect (cf. connect), etc.;

Pejorative prefixes, such as mis-, mal-, pseudo-, e.g. miscalculate, (cf. calculate), misinform (cf. inform), maltreat (cf. treat), pseudo-classicism (cf. classicism), pseudo-scientific (cf. scientific), etc;

Prefixes of time and order, such as fore-, pre-, post-, ex-, e.g. foretell (cf. tell), foreknowledge (cf. knowledge), pre-war (cf. war), postwar (cf. war), post- classical (cf. classical), ex-president (cf. president);

e) Prefix of repetition re-, e.g. rebuild (cf. build), re-write (cf. write), etc;

f) Locative prefixes, such as super-, sub-, inter-, trans-, e.g. superstructure (cf. structure), subway (cf. way), inter-continental (cf. continental), trans- atlantic (cf. atlantic), etc. and some other groups;

5) when viewed from the angle of their stylistic reference English prefixes fall into those characterized by neutral stylistic reference and those possessing quite a definite stylistic value. As no exhaustive lexico-stylistic classification of English prefixes has yet been suggested, a few examples can only be adduced here. There is no doubt, for instance, that prefixes like un-, out-, over-, re-, under- and some others can be qualified as neutral prefixes, e.g. unnatural, unknown, unlace, outnumber, oversee, resell, underestimate, etc. on the other hand, one can hardly fail to perceive the literary-bookish, character of such prefixes as pseudo-, super-, ultra-, uni-, bi- and some others, e.g. pseudo-classical, superstructure, ultraviolet, unilateral, bifocal, etc.

Sometimes one comes across pairs of prefixes, one of which is neutral, the other is stylistically coloured. One example will suffice here: the prefix overoccurs in all functional styles, the prefix super- is peculiar to the style of scientific prose.

6) prefixes may be also classified as to the degree of productivity into highly productive, productive and non-productive.

Suffixation is the formation of words with the help of suffixes. Suffixes usually modify the lexical meaning of the base and transfer words to a different part of speech. There are suffixes however, which do not shift words from one part of speech into another; a suffix of this kind usually transfer a word into a different semantic group, e.g. a concrete noun becomes an abstract one, as is the case with

child - childhood, friend - friendship, etc.

Chains of suffixes occurring in derived words having two and more suffixal morphemes are sometimes refereed to in lexicography as compound suffixes:

-ably = -able + -ly (e.g. profitable, unreasonable); -ical - ly = -ic + -al + -ly (e.g. musically, critically); -ation = -ate + -ion (e.g. fascination, isolation) and some others. Compound suffixes do not always present a mere succession of two or more suffixes arising out of several consecutive stages of derivation. Some of them acquire a new quality operating as a whole unit.

Let us examine from this point of view the suffixation in words like fascination, translation, adaptation and the like. Adaptation looks at first sight like a parallel to fascination, translation. The latter however are first-degree derivatives built with the suffix -ion on the bases fascinate-, translate-. But there is no base adaptate-, only the shorter base adapt-. Likewise damnation, condemnation, formation, information and many others are not matched by shorter bases ending in -ate, but only by still shorter ones damn-, condemn-, form-, inform-. Thus, the suffix -ation is a specific suffix of a composite nature. It consists of two suffixes -ate and -ion, but in many cases functions as a single unit in first-degree derivatives. It is referred to in linguistic literature as a coalescent suffix or a group suffix. Adaptation is then a derivative of the first-degree of derivation built with the coalescent suffix on the base adapt-.

Of interest is also the group suffix -manship consisting of the suffixes -man and -ship. It denotes a superior quality, ability of doing something to perfection, e.g. authormanship, quotemanship, Upmanship, etc. (cf. statesmanship or chairmanship built by adding the suffix -ship to the compound base statesman- and chairman- respectively).

It also seems appropriate to make several remarks about the morphological changes that sometimes accompany the process of combining derivational morphemes with bases. Although this problem has been so far insufficiently investigated, some observations have been made and some data collected. For instance, the noun-forming suffix -ess for names of female beings brings about a certain change in the phonetic shape of the correlative male noun provided the latter ends in er-, -or, e.g. actress (cf. actor), sculptress (cf. sculpter), tigress (cf. tiger), etc. It may be easily observed that in such cases the sound [3] is contracted in the feminine nouns.

The main function of suffixes in Modern English is to form one part of speech from another, the secondary function is to change the lexical meaning of the same part of speech. ( e.g. “educate” is a verb, “educatee” is a noun, and “ music” is a noun, “musicdom” is also a noun) .

There are different classifications of suffixes :

1. Part-of-speech classification. Suffixes which can form different parts of speech are given here :

a) noun-forming suffixes, such as : -er (criticizer), -dom (officialdom), -ism (ageism),

b) adjective-forming suffixes, such as : -able (breathable), less (symptomless), -ous (prestigious),

c) verb-forming suffixes, such as -ize (computerize) , -ify (micrify),

d) adverb-forming suffixes , such as : -ly (singly), -ward (tableward),

e) numeral-forming suffixes, such as -teen (sixteen), -ty (seventy).

2. Semantic classification . Suffixes changing the lexical meaning of the stem can be subdivided into groups, e.g. noun-forming suffixes can denote:

a) the agent of the action, e.g. -er (experimenter), -ist (taxist), -ent (student),

b) nationality, e.g. -ian (Russian), -ese (Japanese), -ish (English),

c) collectivity, e.g. -dom (moviedom), -ry (peasantry, -ship (readership), -ati ( literati),

d) diminutiveness, e.g. -ie (horsie), -let (booklet), -ling (gooseling), -ette (kitchenette),

e) quality, e.g. -ness (copelessness), -ity (answerability).

3. Lexico-grammatical character of the stem. Suffixes which can be added to certain groups of stems are subdivided into:

a) suffixes added to verbal stems, such as : -er (commuter), -ing (suffering), - able (flyable), -ment (involvement), -ation (computerization),

b) suffixes added to noun stems, such as : -less (smogless), ful (roomful), -ism (adventurism), -ster (pollster), -nik (filmnik), -ish (childish),

c) suffixes added to adjective stems, such as : -en (weaken), -ly (pinkly), -ish (longish), -ness (clannishness).

4. Origin of suffixes. Here we can point out the following groups:

a) native (Germanic), such as -er,-ful, -less, -ly.

b) Romanic, such as : -tion, -ment, -able, -eer.

c) Greek, such as : -ist, -ism, -ize.

d) Russian, such as -nik.

5. Productivity. Here we can point out the following groups:

a) productive, such as : -er, -ize, --ly, -ness.

b) semi-productive, such as : -eer, -ette, -ward.

c) non-productive , such as : -ard (drunkard), -th (length).

Suffixes can be polysemantic, such as : -er can form nouns with the following meanings : agent,doer of the action expressed by the stem (speaker), profession, occupation (teacher), a device, a tool (transmitter). While speaking about suffixes we should also mention compound suffixes which are added to the stem at the same time, such as -ably, -ibly, (terribly, reasonably), -ation (adaptation from adapt).

There are also disputable cases whether we have a suffix or a root morpheme in the structure of a word, in such cases we call such morphemes semi-suffixes, and words with such suffixes can be classified either as derived words or as compound words, e.g. -gate (Irangate), -burger (cheeseburger), -aholic (workaholic) etc.

Further, there are suffixes due to which the primary stress is shifted to the syllable immediately preceding them, e.g. courageous (cf. courage), stability (cf. stable), investigation (cf. investigate), peculiarity (cf. peculiar), etc. When added to a base having the suffix -able/-ible as its component, the suffix -ity brings about a change in its phonetic shape, namely the vowel [i] is inserted between [b] and [1], e.g. possible - possibility, changeable - changeability, etc. Some suffixes attract the primary stress on to themselves, there is a secondary stress on the first syllable in words with such suffixes, e.g. employ'ee (cf. em'ploy), govern'mental (cf. govern), pictu'resque (cf. picture).

There are different classifications of suffix in linguistic literature, as suffixes may be divided into several groups according to different principles: 1) The first principle of classification that, one might say, suggests itself is the part of speech formed. Within the scope of the part-of-speech classification suffixes naturally fall into several groups such as:

noun-affixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in nouns, e.g. -er, -dom, -ness, -ation, etc. (teacher, Londoner, freedom, brightness, justification, etc.);

adjective-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adjectives, e.g. -able, - less, -ful, -ic, -ous, etc. (agreeable, careless, doubtful, poetic, courageous, etc.);

verb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in verbs, e.g. -en, -fy, -ize (darken, satisfy, harmonize, etc.);

adverb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adverbs, e.g. -ly, -ward, (quickly, eastward, etc.).

2) Suffixes may also be classified into various groups according to the lexico- grammatical character of the-base the affix is usually added to. Proceeding from this principle one may divide suffixes into:

deverbal suffixes (those added to the verbal base), e.g. -er, -ing, -ment, - able, etc. (speaker, reading, agreement, suitable, etc.);

denominal suffixes (those added to the noun base), e.g. -less, -ish, -ful, -ist,- some, etc. (handless, childish, mouthful, violinist, troublesome, etc.);

de-adjectival suffixes (those affixed to the adjective base), e.g. -en, -ly, -ish, -ness, etc. (blacken, slowly, reddish, brightness, etc.).

3) A classification of suffixes amt also be based on the criterion of sense expressed by a set of suffixes. Proceeding from this principle suffixes are classified into various groups within the bounds of a certain part of speech. For instance, noun-suffixes fall into those denoting:

the agent of an action, e.g. -er, -ant (baker, dancer, defendant, etc.);

appurtenance, e.g. -an, -ian, -ese, etc. (Arabian, Elizabethan, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.);

c) collective, e.g. -age, -dom, -ery (-ry), etc. (freightage, officialdom, peasantry, etc.);

diminutiveness, e.g. -ie, -let, -ling, etc. (birdie, girlie, cloudlet, squirreling, wolfling, etc).,

4) Still another classification of suffixes may be worked out if one examines them from the angle of stylistic reference. Just like prefixes, suffixes are also characterized by quite a definite stylistic reference falling into two basic classes: those characterized by neutral stylistic reference such as -able, -er, -ing, etc.; those having a certain stylistic value such as -old, -i/form, -aceous, -tron, etc.

5) Suffixes are also classified as to the degree of their productivity.

As is known, language is never stable: sounds, constructions, grammatical elements, word - forms and word - meaning are all exposed to alteration. Derivational affixes are no exception in this respect, they also undergo semantic change.

Consequently many commonly used derivational affixes are polysemantic in Modern English. The following two may well serve as illustrations. The noun suffix -er is used to coin words denoting persons following some special trade or profession, e.g. baker, driver, hunter, etc.; persons doing a certain action at the moment in question, e.g. packer, chooser, giver, etc.; a device, tool, implement, e.g. blotter, atomizer, boiler, crasser, transmitter, trailer, etc. The adjective suffixes also have several meanings, such as: Composed of, full of, e.g. bony, story, characterized by, e.g. rainy, cloudy; having the character of, resembling what the base denotes, e.g. inky, busily.

2.3 Productive and non-productive word building prefixes

There are different classifications of affixes in linguistic literature, affixes may be divided into dead and living.

Dead affixes are those which are no longer felt in Modern English as component part of words. They can be singled out only by an etymological analysis.

Ex: deed, seed (d) bright (t)

Living affixes are easily singled out from a word.

Ex: freedom, childhood and so on.

Living affixes are traditionally in their turn divided into productive and non- productive.

1) Productive affixes are those which are characterized by their ability to make new words.

Ex: -er (baker, teacher), -ism, -ish, -ing, -ness, -ation, -ee, -ry, -ance, -ic, -re, - un, -non, -anti, etc. are productive prefixes.

2) Non-Productive are those which are not used to form new words in Modern English. The following prefixes are non-productive ones, -in, -ir, (-im) -mis, - dis.

These affixes may occur in a great number of words but if they are not used to form new words in Modern English they are not productive.

But recent investigations prove that there are no productive and non- productive affix plays a certain role in word formation. There are only affixes with different degree of productivity, besides that productivity of affixes should not be mixed up with their frequency of occurrence in speech. Frequency of affixes is characterized by the occurrence of an affix in a great number of words. But productivity is the ability of a given suffix or prefix to make new words. An affix may be frequent but not productive.

Ex: the suffix «-ive» is very frequent but not productive.

Some linguists namely E.C.Kubrekova distinguishes between two types of prefixes.

Those which are like functional words (such as prepositions or adverbs) Ex: but-, over-, up-.

Those which are not correlated with any independent words. Ex: un-, dis-, re-, mis- etc.

Prefixes out-, over-, up-, under-, etc. are considered as semi bound morphemes. However this view is doubtful because this prefixes are quite frequent in speech and live other derivational affixes have a generalized meaning. They have no grammatical meaning live the independent words. We think they are bound morphemes and should be regarded as homonyms of the corresponding independent words, ex: the prefix «out» in outdoor, outcome, outbreak, etc. is homonymous to the preposition «out» in «out of door» and the adverb «out» in «he went out».

Prefixes may be classified according to their meaning. 1) Prefixes of negative meaning such as: de-, non-, un-, in-, ir-, il-, im-, dis-, and so on.

Ex: debeat; decentralize; disappear; impossible; discomfort.

2) Prefixes denoting space and time relations: after-, under-, for-, pre-, post, over-, super-;

Ex: prehistory; postposition; superstructure; overspread; afternoon; forfather.

3) Prefixes denoting relation of an action such as: re-.

Ex: reread, remark, redo.

Native prefixes have developed out of independent words. Their number is small: a-, be, un-, for-, mid-, and partly mis-. Prefixes of foreign origin came into the language ready made, so to speak.

Some prefixes have secondarily developed uses as independent words as counter sub-arch which does not invalidate the principle that primarily they were particles with no independent existence.

However, not all living derivational affixes of Modern English possess the ability to coin new words on the spur of the moment; others cannot, so that they are different form the point of view of their productivity. Accordingly they fall into two basic classes - productive and non-productive word-building affixes.

It has been pointed out that linguists disagree as to what is meant by the productivity of derivational affixes.

Following the first approach all living affixes should be considered productive in varying degreed from highly-productive (e.g. -er, -ish, -less, re-, etc.) to non-productive (e.g. -ard, -cy, -ive, etc.)

Consequently it becomes important to describe the constraints imposed on and the factors favouring the productivity of affixational patterns and individual affixes. The degree of productivity of affixational patterns very much depends on the structural, lexico-grammatical and semantic nature of bases and the meaning of the affix. For instance, the analysis of the bases from which the suffix -ize can derive verbs reveals that it is most productive with noun-stems, adjective-stems also favour its productivity, whereas verb-stems and adverb-stems do not, e.g. criticize (cf. critic), organize (cf. organ), itemize (cf. item), mobilize (cf. mobile), localize (cf. local), etc. Comparison of the semantic structure of a verb in -ize with that of the base it is built on shows that the number of meanings of the stem usually exceeds that of the verb and that its basic meaning favours the productivity of the suffix -ize to a greater degree than its marginal meanings, cf. to characterize - character, to moralize - moral, to dramatize - drama, etc.

The treatment of certain affixes as non-productive naturally also depends on the concept of productivity. The current definition of non-productive derivational affixes as those which cannot be used in Modern English for the coining of new words is rather vague and may be interpreted in different ways. Following the definition the term non-productive refers only to the affixes unlikely to be used for the formation of new words, e.g. -ous, -th, fore- and some others (cf. famous, depth, to foresee).

If one accepts the other concept of productivity mentioned above, then non- productive affixes must be defined as those that cannot be used for the formation of occasional words and, consequently, such affixes as -dom, -ship, -fill, -en, -ify, - ate and many others are to be regarded as non-productive.

The degree of productivity of a suffix or, to be more exact of a derivational affix in general may be established on a statistical basis as the ratio of the number of newly-formed words with the given suffix to his number of words with the same suffix already operating in the language. E. Kruisinga «A Handbook of Present Day English» Z. 1935

The theory of relative of derivational affixes is also corroborated by some other observations made on English word-formation. For instance, different productive affixes are found in different periods of history of the language. It is extremely significant, for example, that out of the seven verb-forming suffixes of the Old English period only one has survived up to the present time with a very low degree of productivity, namely the suffix -en (cf. to soften, to darken, to whiten).

A derivational affix may become productive in just one meaning because that meaning is specially needed by the community at a particular phase in its history. This may be well illustrated by the prefix de- in the sense of «undo what has been done, reverse an action or process», e.g. deacidify (paint spray), decasualize (dock labour), decentralize (government or management), duration (eggs and butter), de-reserve (medical students), desegregate (coloured children), and so on.

Furthermore, there are cases when a derivational affix being non-productive I the non-specialized section of the vocabulary is used to coin scientific or technical terms. This is the case, for instance, with the suffix -ance which has been used to form some terms in Electrical Engineering, e.g. capacitance, impedance, reactance. The same is true of the suffix -ity which has been used to form terms in physics and chemistry such as alkalinity, luminosity, emissity and some others.

While examining the stock of derivational affixes in Modern English from the point of view of their origin distinction should first of all be made between native and foreign affixes, e.g. the suffixes -ness, -ish, -dom and the prefixes be-, mis-, un- are of native origin, whereas such suffixes as -ation, -ment, -able and prefixes like dis-, ex-, re- are of foreign origin.

Many of the suffixes and prefixes of native origin were originally independent words. In the course of time they have gradually lost their independence and turned into derivational affixes. For instance, such noun-suffixes as -dom, -hood, -ship. Noun dom which meant «judgement»; «sentence». The suffix -hood goes back to the OE, noun had, which meant «state», «condition»; the adjective suffix -ly (e.g. manly, friendly) is also traced back to the OE, noun lie- «body», «shape». Some suffixes are known to have originated as a result of secretion. An instance of the case is the suffix -ling occurring in words like duckling, yearling, hireling, etc. the suffix is simply the extended form of the Old English suffix -ing and has sprung from words in which -ing was tacked on to a stem ending in [1] as lytling. Many suffixes, however, have always been known as derivational affixes within the history of the English language, for instance -ish, - less-, -ness, etc.

The same is true of prefixes: some have developed out of independent words, e.g. out-, under-, over-, others have always functioned as derivational affixes, e.g. mis-, un-.

It is to be marked that quite a number of borrowed derivational are of international currency. For instance, the suffix, -ist of Greek origin is used in many European languages to form a noun denoting «one who adheres to a given doctrine or system, a political party, an ideology» or «one, who makes a practice of a given action» (cf. socialist, communist, Marxist, artist, scenarist, realist and their Russian equivalents). Of international currency is also the suffix -ism of Greek origin used to form abstract nouns denoting «Philosophical doctrines, political and scientific theories)) etc. (e.g. materialism, realism, Darwinism). Such prefixes as anti-, pre-, extra-, ultra- are also used to coin new words in many languages, especially in political and scientific terminology (e.g. antifascist, pro-German extra-territorial, transatlantic, ultra-violet) Arnold 1. - «The English Word».

The adoption of countless foreign words exercised a great influence upon the system of English word-formation, one of the results being the appearance of many hybrid words in the English vocabulary.

In conclusion I want to say some Different points of view on productivity of an affix. We call productive those affixes and types of word-formation which are used to form new words in the period in Question. The proof of productivity is the existence of new words coined by these means. Therefore when we see that a notion that could not possible have extended at some previous stage has a name formed with the help of some affix, the affix is considered productive. The productivity of any pattern derivational inflectional or syntactical - is the relative freedom with which speakers coin new grammatical forms by it.

Thus the formation of English noun plurals with z, s, is is highly productive. The addition of -ly_, to produce an adverbial is fairly productive.

«Productivity of word building ways; individual derivational patterns and derivational affixes is understood as their ability of making new words which all we speak English, find no difficulty in understanding, in particular their ability to create what are called occasional words». Hocket Ch. - «A Course in Moderns New York 1958

«A derivational pattern or derivational affixes are qualified as productive provided there are in word-stock dozens and hundreds of derived words built on the pattern or with the help of the suffix in question)). Ginzburg R. - «A Course in Modern English» Derivational productivity is distinguished from word-formation activity by which is meant the ability of an affix to produce new words.

The recent investigations prove that there are no productive and non- productive affix plays a certain role in word-formation. There are only affixes with different degree of productivity, besides that productivity of affixes should not be mixed up with their frequency of occurrence in speech. Frequency of affixes is characterized by the occurrence of an affix in a great number of words. But productivity is the ability of a given suffix or prefix to make new words. An affix may be frequent but not productive.

The degree of productivity of a suffix or, to be more exact of a derivational affix in general may be established on a statistical basis as the ratio of the number of newly-formed words with the given suffix to his number of words with the same suffix already operating in the language. E. C. Кубрекова - « Чmo maкое словообразование?» M. 1964 The theory of relative of derivational affixes is also corroborated by some other observations made on English word- formation. For instance, different productive affixes are found in different periods of history of the language. If is extremely significant, for example, that out of the seven verb-forming suffixes of the Old English period only one has survived up to the present time with a very low degree of productivity.

Prefixes of native and foreign origin

We call prefixes such particle s as can be prefixed to full words but are them selves not words with an independent existence. Native prefixes have developed out of independent words. Their number is small: a-, be-, un-, (negative and reversative), fore-, mid-and (partly) mis-, Prefixes of foreign origin came into the language ready made, so to speak. Tey are due to syntagmatic loans from other languages: when a number of analyzable foreign words of the same strucure had been introduced into the language, the pattern could be extended to new formations. i. e. the prefix then became a derivative morpheme. Some prefixes have second le-rely developed uses as independent words, as counter, sub, arch which does not invalidate the principle that primarily they were particles with no independent existence. The same phenomenon occurs with suffixes also.

Prefixing on a Neo-Latin basis of coining

There are many prefixes, chiefly used in learned words or in scientific terminology, which have come into the language through borrowing from Modern Latin, as ante-, extra-, intra-/ meta, para - etc. The practice of word coining with there particles begins in the 16th century, but really develops with the progress of modern science only, i.e. in the 18th and esp the 19th century. With these particles there is a practical difficulty. They may represent 1) such elements as are prefixes (in the above meaning) in Latin or 6 reek, as a - (acaudal etc.), semi - (semi-annual), 2) such elements as exist as prepositions or particles with an independent word existence, as intra, circum / hyper, para, 3) such as are the stems of full words in Latin or 6 reek, as multi-, omni-/ astro-, hydro.

This last group is usually termed combining forms (OED Webster). In principle, the three groups are on the same footing from the point of view of English wf, as they represent loan elements in English with no independent existence as words. That macro-, micro - a. o. should be termed combining from while hyper-, hypro-, intro-, intra - a. o. are called prefixes by the OED, is by no means justified.

Only such pts as are prefixed to fool English words of generals, learned, scientific or technical character can be termed prefixes. Hyper-in hypersensitive is a prefix, but hyper - in hypertrophy is not, as-trophy is no word.

We cannot, however, under take to deal with all the prepositive elements occurring in English. Such elements as astro-, electro-, galato-, hepato-, oscheo - and countless others which are used in scientific or technical terminology have not been treated in this book. They offer a purely dictionary interest in any case. In the main, only those pts howe been considered that fall under the above groups 1) and 2) But we have also in duded a few prefixes which lie outside this scope, as prfs denoting number (poly-, multi-), the pronominal stem auto, which is used with many words of general character, and pts which are type - forming with English words of wider currency (as crypto-, neo-, pseudo-).

There is often competition between prefixes as there is between suffixes and in dependent words: over - and out - sometimes overlap, there is overlapping between un - (negative) and in-, un - (reversative), dis - and de-, between ante and pre-, super - and trans-, super - and supra.

The conceptual relations underlying prefixed words

A pre-particle or prefix combination may be based on three different conceptual patterns and accordingly present the prefixing three functional aspects: 1) the prefix has adjectival force (with sbs, as in anteroom, archbishop, co-hostess, ex-king); 2) the prefix has adverbial force (with adjectives and verbs, as in unconscious, hypersensitive, informal, overanxious/ unroll, revrite, mislay); 3) the prefix has prepositional force (as in prewar years, postgraduate studies, antiaircraft gun) afire, aflutter/anti-Nazi, afternoon/encage: sbs and vbs must be considered syntagmas with a zero determinate, the suffixs anti-Nazi, afternoon, encage being the respective determinants).

The preceding conceptual patterns are important in the determination of the stress: while a suffix. Based on an adjunct (primary relation tends to have two heavy stresses (as in arch - enemy)) or may even have the main stress on the prefix (as in subway), the prf. Has not more than a full middle stress in the other types.

The phonemic status of prefixes

The semi-independent, word-like status of prefixes also appears from their treatment in regard to stress. With the exception of regularly unstressed a - (as in afire, aflutter), be - (as in befriend), and em-, en - (as in emplace, encage) all prefixes have stress. To illustrate this important point a comparison with non-composite words of similar phonetic structure will be useful. If we compare the words re-full and repeat, morphemic re- / ri / in refill is basically characterized by presence of stress whereas non-morphemic re - [ri] is basically characterized by absence of stress. This is proved by the fact that under certain phonetically unpredictable circumstances, the phonemic stress of re-in re-full, though basically a middle stress, can take the form of heavy stress where as phonemic absence of stress can never rise to presence of stress. They refilled the tank may become they refilled the tank (for the sake of contrast) or they refilled the tank (for emphasis), but no such shift is conceivable for mono-morphemic repeat, incite, prefer etc. Which invariably maintain the pattern no stress/heavy stress.

Productive and non-productive affixes

The synchronic analysis of the preceding paragraph studies the present-day system and patterns characterized of the English vocabulary by comparing simultaneously existing words. In diachronic analysis Lexical elements are compared with those from which they have been formed and developed and their present productivity is determined. The diachronic study of vocabulary establishes whether the present morphological structure of each element of the vocabulary is due to the process of affixation or some other word-forming process, which took place within the English vocabulary in the course of its development, or whether it has some other source. The possible other sources are: (1) the borrowing of morphologically divisible words, e.g. i/-liter-ate from lat. Illiterates or litera-ture from lat litteratura: (2) reactivation, e.g. When in a number of Latin verbs harrowed in the second participle form with the suffix - at (us), this suffix became - ate (separate), and came to be understood as a characteristic mark of the infinitive; (3) False etymology: when a difficult, usually borrowed, word structure is destroyed in to some form suggesting a motivation, as, for instance, in the change of asparagus into sparrowgrass, or OF r and ME crevice into crayfish.

Synchronic analysis concentrates on structural types and treats word-formation as a system of rules, aiming at the creation of a consistent and complete theory by which the observed facts cab be classified, and the non-observed facts can be predicted. This aim has not been achieved as yet, so that a consistently synchronic description of the English language is still fragmentary still requires frequent revision. Diachronic analysis concentrating on word-forming possesses is more fully worked out.

All the foregoing treatment has been strictly synchronic i.e. only the present state of the English vocabulary has been taken into consideration. To have a complete picture of affixation, however one must be acquainted with the development of the stock of morphemes involved. A diachronic approach is thus indispensable.

The basic contrast that must be detalt with in this connection is the opposition of productive and non-productive affixes.

2.4 Some prefixes in the English language in comparison with the Uzbek language

All these comparative analysis of the English language showed that English is not so rich in suffixes as the Uzbek language. Uzbek suffixes are more than English suffixes. And Prefixation is more typical to the English language than Uzbek prefixes. As I studied in my Qualification Paper prefixes in Uzbek and English languages, I want to give some examples with the prefix in English and Uzbek languages.

...